|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 16
1
Introduction and Background
Thirty of the nation's fifty states have coastlines on the Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes. These
30 states contain approximately 85 percent of the nation's popula-
tion, with nearly 53 percent of this population living in a 5~m~le-wide
corridor bordering the coast. Projections to the end of this century
indicate continued population growth within this coastal corridor,
accompanied by an increasing demand for shoreline development.
At present, there is considerable public concern over coastal erosion,
coastal erosion control measures, and coastal land use regulations
and preservation of a natural coastline.
Unlike flooding, there is no well-defined federal program de-
signed to mitigate property damage or loss caused by coastal ero-
sion. Coastal erosion mitigation programs must be formulated in a
complex policy arena in which federal, state, county, and municipal
governments share jurisdictions over the coast. Consequently, each
length of coast is subject to multiple layers of public authority. Like-
wise, public participants (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial,
preservational, or recreational) reflect another diverse set of interests
in the coast.
Development of a coastal erosion mitigation program is compli-
cated by a number of existing conditions. First, the capability to
predict coastal response to erosion-causing forces in the environment
is imprecise. Second, the ability to predict erosion-causing forces is
not well developed and not likely to be perfected. Third, private
16
OCR for page 17
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
17
erosion insurance essentially is unavailable on property built close
(hundreds of feet) to an eroding shore.
Erosion mitigation problems also involve the issue of cost to the
public. This cost includes data acquisition and administration of
an erosion management program, to say nothing of the intangible
costs of the loss of beach usage. Consideration also must be given
to the resources available to offset these costs. In many cases, the
least costly solution to coastal erosion problems is to improve sand
management practices that adversely affect shoreline stability. As
examples, good-quality sand dredged from channel entrances should
be placed on the adjacent beaches, and sand rn~ning from certain
riverbeds near coastlines should be discontinued.
The Committee Report for the Upton-Jones legislation encour-
ages FEMA to participate ~ the task of developing a coastal erosion
management program. This specific piece of legislation addresses
problems of those states presently suffering significant erosion along
their coasts. Opinions differ as to (1) whether this is an appropri-
ate activity for the federal government, (2) whether it properly fans
within the rubric of Insurance, and (3) whether this is the best way
to address the problems of shore protection.
Tr' response to the Upton-Jones legislation, some observers might
argue for a laissez-faire philosophy that opts for no government in-
volvement. This attitude presumes that those who take the risk of
owning shorefront property and reap the benefits of living along the
coast wiD respond to the marketplace or their emotions but that
these individuals should make their own decisions about remaining
in a potentially hazardous position. Such observers might argue fur-
ther that the government should have no role in either prescribing
land use or protecting those who choose to take risks.
Other observers might argue in favor of a regulatory philosophy
that encourages state government to manage the coast. A state
program might in the long run provide a cost saving for the United
States. However, the Upton-Jones legislation does provide a carrot,
to those who would build or live in erosion-prone areas, to depart
and let the natural systems take their course.
Regardless of reaction to the existing Upton-Jones legislation,
there are several types of policy goals that should be reflected in
any effort by FEMA to formulate a more comprehensive national
policy on erosion. First, certain goals are implicit to the National
Flood Insurance Act providing FEMA's basic authority to engage in
flood-related erosion mitigation:
OCR for page 18
18
MANAGING COASTAL EROSION
~ Reduce the costs, both monetary and nonmonetary, inflicted
by erosion on public and private investment in coastal areas.
. Reallocate the costs of erosion-related losses (including flood
damage) from all federal taxpayers to the population of persons own-
ing structures in flood- or erosion-prone areas through the mechanism
of actuarial insurance premiums.
. Promote better shoreline management to achieve multiple
goals in addition to flood/erosion hazard reduction (e.g., shoreline
access, water quality improvement, public recreation, and preserva-
tion or restoration of natural ecosystems).
A second set of goals relates to the nature of erosion as a physical
process:
~ Provide flexibility in a national policy to accommodate re-
gional variations stemming from differing shoreline types, erosion
rates, settlement patterns, political structures, and extent of human-
induced intervention in coastal processes (see Chapter 3~.
Initiate action to eliminate human-induced erosion.
~ Accommodate seasonal and other temporal variation in the
incidence of erosion losses (e.g., in the irregular cycles of high and
Tow levels of the Great Lakes).
A third set of goals relates to fairness and administrative feasi-
bility:
.
Facilitate efficient administration through clarity of require-
ments and presentation of erosion rate data on Federal Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs).
~ Avoid redundant federal studies by using existing state or
focal erosion rate data, maps, and enforcement mechanisms whenever
feasible.
~ Afford opportunity for the affected public to participate in
the regulatory process, including right of appeal.
. Place the decision-making process as close as possible to the
affected property owner pursuant to national standards.
~ Promote consistency with other related federal programs
(e.g., Coastal Zone Management, Clean Water Act, shore protec-
tion programs, etc.~.
This report has been assembled with a multidisciplinary per-
spective. It expresses a consensus strengthened by the diversity of
backgrounds and philosophies of the individual committee members.
OCR for page 19
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
19
It has drawn on the experience from existing management programs;
individuals at the local, state, and federal levels; and private sector
interests in the coastal zone. The committees intent in preparing
this report is to provide direction to the federal government and its
agencies and at the same time to provide a document to assist all
members of the coastal community.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
erosion management
